State Supreme Court justices admit they WANT racism used in America * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh

www.wnd.com
Wisconsin Supreme Court

Two justices on a state Supreme Court admit they have to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent and rule against racism, but at they same time they are confirming that that’s exactly what they want in America.

And it bodes ill, according to a constitutional expert, if Democrats ever get their way and “pack” the nation’s highest court with leftists, because then racist agendas could become the law of the land.

The stunning leftist demands come from Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford, both extreists who sit on the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin.

The court recently struck down a state scholarship program that had been handing out money based on race.

According to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor whose advice has at times guided the actions of Congress, the Democrat-controlled court in Wisconsin “followed the precedent laid out by the United States Supreme Court in finding that Gov. Tony Evers and the state were violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Karofsky and Crawford in the opinion “denounced” the ban on racism.

“If Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court as demanded by many party leaders, this concurrence is an example of the likely changes that a packed court will bring in reversing anti-discrimination and other rulings,” Turley warned.

The case was handled by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and that organization called it a “significant victory for true equality.”

WILL spokesman Dan Lennington said, “This is a major win for students. Race cannot be used to dole out scholarships and other financial aid. This is also a big win for taxpayers, who can now challenge many other race-based programs in state court.”

The court found, “We conclude that the Taxpayers have standing and that the Grant Program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ decision that the statute is unconstitutional and conclude that HEAB is enjoined from operating the Grant Program.”

WILL brought the action in 2021 because the program violated federal law and the state constitution. It represented five Wisconsin taxpayers who object to the state running a race-based scholarship program that blatantly discriminated against white students.

The program was called the Wisconsin Minority Undergraduate Rtenetion Grant Program, and it gave up to $2,500 per academic year to students, but only if they were “Black American, American Indian, Hispanic, or certain Southeast Asian backgrounds.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruled that the Constitution demands “every person must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of race.”

Turley said it appeared that Karofsky and Crawford, if ever in a position of power, would change that.

Karofsky, for example, complained, “Why have we not learned from our past? Why are we not willing to recognize the harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised? Why, instead of wielding the Equal Protection Clause as a sword against racism, do we employ it to shield against the promise of equality for all? The answer appears to be because we have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

Those two even quoted from the losing arguments used at the U.S. Supreme Court by Ketanji Jackson “that requiring race-neutral rules is just more ‘let-them-eat-cake obliviousness’ by white people,” Turley noted.

“These justices would continue race-based programs indefinitely under the claim that there is a ‘preference for White Americans’ in programs that focus purely on academic achievement or specific non-racial criteria,” Turley explained.

He noted the fallacies in the arguments.

“Notably, those ‘truths’ from the Jackson dissent have been challenged as containing glaring false claims,” he explained. “I have previously discussed my disagreements with Jackson and her jurisprudence, including her dissent in the SFFA case. However, this concurrence vividly shows the jurists whom the Democrats could call upon to pack the Supreme Court to reverse decisions like the one in SFFA.”

He said the importance of the 2028 election is becoming more and more clear, as “Democratic politicians and pundits have made clear that they need the immediate control of the Supreme Court to carry out an agenda that would be struck down as unconstitutional. That includes reversing core constitutional rulings. The Karofsky concurrence offers a glimpse into our future if we allow the Court to be the subject of a political hostile takeover.”

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here.